One interview subject that plays a prominent role in HBO's Mea Maxima Culpa is Richard Sipe, a longtime Catholic Church basher. After being a Benedictine monk for 18 years, Sipe left the priesthood, and he then married a woman in 1970. Since then, in his books and public appearances, Sipe has often expressed open hostility towards the Catholic Church.

The first thing that may strike viewers about Sipe is his blatant disingenuousness. In Mea Maxima Culpa, Sipe claims he has "great respect" for the Catholic Church, but then in the very next breath he actually asserts that the Church "selects, cultivates, protects, defends, and produces sexual abusers."

Wow. Who on earth could possibly "respect" an organization like that? Quite simply, Sipe wants to have it both ways. He wants to give the impression that he has no animus for the Church, but then he proceeds to portray it in the most mean-spirited, negative, and salacious light.

Bad theology

In the film, Sipe mischaracterizes the role of priests in the Sacrament of Communion by portraying Catholic priests as David Blaine-like magicians. Sipe announces, "A priest can take bread and wine and make Jesus Christ present on [the] altar." In fact, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which reveals the tenets of Catholicism, actually teaches:

CCC 1375 (b) "It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered." (quoting St. John Chrysostom)

Quite simply, Sipe's claim is false.

Power over heaven and hell?

Sipe then goes on to say that "[A priest] has power over heaven and hell, so when [you come to him] in Confession, and [he says], 'I won't absolve you,' You'll be damned."

Needless to say, the Catholic Church does not claim that priests have "power over heaven and hell." (For example, see CCC 668: "Jesus Christ is Lord: he possesses all power in heaven and on earth.")

And as far as Sipe's bizarre and kooky scenario of a priest refusing to absolve someone who seeks forgiveness of sins, one need only look to CCC 1441 ("Only God forgives sins") and especially CCC 1466 ("The confessor is not the master of God's forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ …").

Again, Sipe's presentation of Church teaching in this regard is clearly problematic.

"A little less than the angels"?

Sipe also asserts that the Catholic Church is teaching "heresy" in that "When a man is ordained a priest, he is changed ontologically. He is made a different brand of human being, 'a little less than the angels'."

His reference to "a little less than the angels" comes from Psalms 8:5. However, the line in the psalm actually refers to all of mankind, not only to the ministerial priesthood.

Sipe's presentation is misleading, if not flat-out false.

A spotty record and spotty company

Sipe's dubious theology should not be a surprise considering some other public statements that the bitter ex-priest has made. In a 2010 feature about Pope Benedict, Sipe actually told ABC News that "several hundred [popes] have been murdered" in the Catholic Church's 2000-year history.

It is a wild claim indeed, considering the fact that there have only been about 266 popes since the Catholic Church's foundation.

Comments

Dave just a small critique. It's a bit de classe as it were to only post unattractive pictures of those you deem your opposition. Particularly with you being "Christian" and everything. It just isn't playing fairly. If you really believe what you write to be true. And I do believe you do. Let's be more "Christian" and turn the other cheek.

All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those toward whom it intends to direct itself. Therefore its spiritual level has to be keyed the lower, the greater the mass of people which one wants to attract …. The more modest, then, its scientific ballast is, and the more it exclusively considers the feelings of the masses, the more striking will be its success.

It is another function of propaganda to hammer home, by endless repetition, if necessary, a few clearly articulated notions, preferably in vivid pictorial images. Moreover, since propaganda aims at persuasion rather than instruction, it is far more effective to appeal to the emotions rather than to the rational capacities of the crowds … The heart assents more easily than the mind, especially when a demon speech maker unleashes the seductive power of emotionality … Crowds are more impressionable and gullible than individuals; they are apt to believe the unbelievable. In fact, they swallow the big lie more easily than the small lie, which would suggest that the biggest promises or claims are more persuasive than the humbler truths … ‘People, in an overwhelming majority are … motivated less by sober consideration than by feeling and sentiment’. In the end, people are persuaded effectively only when the last vestiges of doubt have been removed from their minds. This cannot be accomplished by objective presentation of all sides of an issue, but rather by the insistence that only one side is the absolute truth. The task of propaganda … is to stress exclusively the doctrine one is advocating and to contrast it sharply with its … alternative. In political discourse there are no shades of grey but only the positive or the negative, right or wrong, truth or the lie.

The two preceding paragraphs are in italics because they are quotations. I didn’t want to distract from their content with the quotation marks right off the bat – so thus the italics instead.

They are both taken from the 1995 history “Nazi Germany: A New History”, by the German historian Klaus P. Fischer.

The first paragraph is a direct quote from “Mein Kampf”, the book written by the head Nazi with the funny moustache and the second paragraph is Dr. Fischer’s follow-on paragraph, which also includes a snippet or two from the late Fuhrer. Both appear on pages 173-4 of Dr. Fischer’s history.

I submit these paragraphs for consideration in light of DP’s very acute look at this HBO production, and also since these thoughts from Funny-Moustache Man’s did not die with him, but rather have actually been adopted by all sorts of groups looking to accomplish their goals. And thus find their relevance for us on this very site even today.

Yes I can see your point: the word is the same, so the seventeenth and twentieth-century instances must be totally the same.

But the Church was missionizing in post-Reformation Europe (as were the numerous and already-fractalized variants of the Protestant illumination) and Hitler was up to the deceptive manipulation of public opinion in the service of everything the Nazi Reich sought to achieve. Unless of course one sees no essential difference between the two. Which, of course, is an opinion one is entitled to entertain. I would consider such a position Cartoonish, but folks can decide for themselves.

I could also recommend the Wiki article on Propaganda (link below). While not all Wiki articles are equally reliable, this one gives a decent overview of the history of the term through its various permutations.

Also, further down in the article, you get a sizable bullet-list of terms and stratagems particularly prevalent in propagandistic manipulation, especially as it is practiced in the modern era. Readers might want to look over the list and apply some thought to the issues, thought-processes, dynamics, and organizations that the TMR site tries to deal with and to counteract.

Lastly, as a mental exercise, one might consider the precise nature of the fallacy in the following line of reasoning: i) fire trucks were equipped with water-cannons to put out fires; ii) vehicle-mounted water cannons were later used by authoritarian governments to suppress crowds of demonstrating citizens; iii) therefore fire trucks are anti-democratic.

That Wiki article hyperlinks to another Wiki article on Spin and Politics (link below).

And there we find the concept of “front group” which is defined as a situation in which “a lobby group hides its true purpose and support-base, which is a form of astro-turfing through which they intend to sway public opinion or the government without disclosing their financial connection to corporate or political interests”. This discussion then continues by saying that such front-groups “create a fake grass-roots movement by giving the appearance of a trusted organization that serves the public, when they actually serve their sponsors”.

As I have said in the past, this is one of the poorest quality of journalism. I have suggested to my students not to log on to mediareport. Circus as always. Sad when they could provide some quality non bias reporting.

Pub in your ell defined definition of a "front group" above, your inference seems to be that lawyers like Jef Anderson are the real "back" of SNAP. We thought the same thing here in L.A. but we and you were and in your case are wrong. Victims here rebeled at almost everything SNAP did. It treated all victims with distancing; arrogance and superiority about everything. We couldn't figure out why we were all kept at arms length away from most P.R. decisions by SNAP. And that all ALL SNAP's press releases and decision making was coming from St. Louis. Some unknown people in St. Louis were making policy for Los Angeles???? Think about it.

We were "told" we were a movement yet never allowed to act like a movement because we so rarely met other victims to "move" with.

‘Rondre’ thinks TMR is a “circus”. This self-declared professor of media then says in an English that sounds like it was fabricated in a Transylvanian workshop by the light of the full moon that she advises her students not to read it.

And yet no explanation as to what – in her professional assessment – makes TMR a “circus”. You’d think a professor would take any opportunity to share hard-earned thoughts and contribute to the discourse. But then, this self-styled educator seems to have no coherent and cohesive thoughts to offer, only epithets. Though, of course, s/he has every right to express them.

Perhaps if this professor were to at least share with us the link to a syllabus for one of the courses s/he teaches, then I for one could let go of the queasy suspicion that – once again – we are reading transmissions from the day-room of a secure facility. I would very much appreciate being relieved of that burden.

I would draw a distinction between a) what often (not “always”) happens and b) what ideally should happen. The desire to “control” – through manipulation and deceit, raised to the level of a science – is contrary to the dignity due to human beings and as owed to them by those who govern them, as even Aquinas realized centuries ago in his Letter to the King of Cyprus.

It is one thing to make laws to keep people from doing the wrong thing (traffic laws seek to control certain types of behavior, but they are not ‘propaganda’); it is another thing altogether to ‘control’ people by destructively and deliberately manipulating their ability to accurately perceive truth in order to ‘control’ them into inaccurate perceptions for the manipulator’s or manipulators’ purposes.

To whatever extent the Church got things ‘wrong’ in regard to the victims in an era now past (and the extent of that extent has yet to be clearly demonstrated), I would say that we have to factor in the reality that – as victimology activists have been saying all along – before they came along no organizations at all actually got it right about ‘victims’.

To which, as always, I add the further qualifiers that a) we have to distinguish between genuinely-established victims and persons otherwise categorizable; and b) that as a human institution the Church is liable to the gravitational pull of human weakness just like any other organization composed of humans (such as the courts and police with drunk drivers before MADD made its contribution).

It has not in any way been clearly established that hell is a fictitious place. Nor do private communications through tinfoil hats qualify as anything more than ‘spectral evidence’ and so the opinion that hell is a fictitious place doesn’t qualify as any sort of ‘evidence’ that the Church is passing on fictitious material. The abuse, in any case, is in the “sin”, not in whatever experiences are to be had in the realm of hell. If hell is a real place, then it would be a grave disservice to any human being not to inform them; if ‘sin’ is real it would certainly be a profound abuse to let a child grow up with no awareness of its dynamics.

And despite what JR presumes that I “know very well”, what I do now is that the Church has not sought “absolute dictatorship” even if we leave aside the metaphysical realm and simply talk about the demonstrable history of the Church. I say that the Church, to use an image, has been more like a flight-school: trying to train pilots so that they don’t wreck themselves and others by operating the aircraft they fly in such a way – contrary to the principles of aerodynamics – that is going to make a hash of their own lives and the lives of others. So I most certainly do not “know very well” that the Church – like the Reich and Ivan the Terrible and a pandemonium of lesser demoniacal characters – tried to a) create an “absolute dictatorship” b) in the service of imposing upon human beings perceptions and actions contrary to the nature of the human being.

That presumes, of course, that human beings have a nature in the first place. Do I hear an objection to that?

Human nature is what humans have and that ranges from brutality and ignorance to transendence and light. Takes your choice. We were once inclined to own another human being if we had the cash and no empathy. Now just feeling superior to others seems important. To keep the status quo rolling? I don't know. I do know anything man can do or wants to do comes from himself/herself. No bogey man just us and that can be quite scary enough.

If you tell people from birth that God wants them to do such and such i.e. Kill a Commie for Christ. You can get them to do anything if you scare them enough. Jesus never said to kill anybody. And what kind of diety creates a hell for those of you that don't jump through all the Church defined hoops? People have morallity not because a god gave us morality; but because morality is the best way for humans to get along with each other.

I merely disagree that the Church has any advantage in human morality when it has failed in it's own actions 9 times out of 10.

I don’t agree with it, but JR’s comment is nicely stated. And in that spirit I would respond as follows.

“Human nature” – certainly as the Church envisions it – is a far more complex reality and exists on a level beyond what JR describes in his first sentence: it is the essence of what makes a human being a human being, distinguishing him/her (hereinafter I’ll refer to the ‘HB’, short for human-being and thus avoid the clunky gender distinctions) from other life-forms. What JR describes are characteristics that are present in the HB, and different HBs – as individuals and as shaped and formed by the cultures in which they were raised – will demonstrate different combinations of those characteristics. Choice enters into it as well: HBs can to some extent choose what characteristics to ‘actualize’ in their attitudes and behaviors; forms of mental-illness can also have a serious effect on behaviors; current psychological diagnostic practice also includes ‘personality disorders’ of various sorts, although there is no clear line between what they describe and the amount of interior freedom an individual has to choose or to change patterns of behavior and thought that have become typical of him/her.

And then there is – in the Church’s vision – the element of “sin”: one can deliberately choose to engage in actions that do not support, and often derange, the genuine HB nature which each HB shares will all other HBs. To the extent that we talk on this level, we are talking about morality: an act or attitude that involves the possibility of enhancing or deranging one’s genuine HB nature (and most acts and attitudes contain that possibility) automatically contains a moral dimension to it.

And there is the reality of Original Sinfulness, which is the unavoidable HB tendency toward choosing attitudes or behaviors that will create or contribute to that derangement. Some attitudes or behaviors will seriously endanger or derange that HB nature, and some less so.

The Church’s position – and much Classical philosophy had also come to this before the Church – is that through Christ and the use of our Reason (guided by the Holy Spirit, within a set of parameters supported by doctrine) HBs can grasp the basics of their genuine nature. This is the equivalent of the pilot understanding the basic laws of aero-dynamics which define and underlie the operation of the HB ‘aircraft’ and it is why I used the image of the Church as running a ‘flight-school’ through which ‘pilots’ are trained in the basic of operating their aircraft. Through this training individual HBs can learn what the aircraft is capable of, and what decisions will enhance the operation of the aircraft and what decisions will derange (perhaps lethally) the operation of the aircraft.

Much of Modern philosophy (since the Renaissance-Reformation) and almost all of Contemporary philosophy seeks to avoid any talk of an essential HB nature or any HB ‘essence’ because – it is thought – such pre-existing ‘nature’ limits freedom and choice and is therefore (as it were) ‘oppressive’. And also because if there is a clearly established definition of what a genuine HB nature is, then it becomes too easy to ‘judge’ oneself or others: ‘my’ actions or ‘their’ actions are or are-not conformable to the genuine or ideal HB nature. And nowadays, one doesn’t want to be ‘judgmental’ or ‘oppressive’; in fact one French theorist – Baudrillard – opines that every ideal is ‘oppressive’ because it requires you to limit the attitudes and actions of yourself or others. The solution to that problem, in contemporary approaches, is in far too many cases to get rid of ideals.

But it is the Church’s position – though she didn’t invent it – that HBs, like the aircraft, have an essential form or nature; and that the form or nature Shapes or should Shape the proper acts and attitudes of the HB and – in the aircraft metaphor – the pilot. All Shape by definition ‘limits’ the thing that is Shaped: Shape precisely defines the thing-Shaped so that it can be distinguished from other things that are differently-Shaped. Life is a process of understanding the Shapes around us and – as HBs – our own Shape.

One of the reasons the Church seems so out-of-step with contemporary culture is that the Church does not see ‘limits’ as immediately and absolutely ‘bad’: limits are like the endoskeletal system: the same rigidity that keeps HBs from twisting around into all sorts of bendy-shapes freely also creates the vital support without which the human body becomes a shape-less gelatinous mass of bio-jello lying around on the floor. But, as I said, far too many elements in contemporary culture simply see ‘limits’ as ‘oppressive’ and so forth.

But, I would say, this is the equivalent of saying that the laws of aerodynamics ‘oppress’ a pilot’s choices (s/he can’t fly an aircraft in reverse, for example, no matter how much or for whatever reasons s/he would like to). Would you fly in an aircraft whose pilot cheeribly announces that s/he will not allow the flight to be ‘oppressed’ by the laws of aerodynamics?

So while there is much discussion of just what ‘limits’ should be set – and supported by culture and education, including religious education – there is also a profound contemporary aversion to ‘limits’ as a concept in the first place. And the Church’s position is that without limits there is a) no genuine Shape and b) the possibility for human (or cultural or governmental) going-beyond any limits … and that way lies profound and probably fatal moral derangement.

(Yes, before we go any farther, I will say that the Church, to the extent that individual priests have actually abused others, has not fully lived up to her own best insights. That is the way of things with human beings and their organization; reforms have been made and they are by all extant indicators succeeding.)

Once you have started flying the aircraft in defiance of the laws of aerodynamics, you as the pilot will quickly create hell for yourself (and anybody whose lives will be impacted by your actions). That is the key dynamic in this hell business: there are consequences built-into the disregarding of the laws of aerodynamics or the laws of HB nature. There is no doctrinal claim that anybody is actually in Hell (meaning – with the capital-H – that dimension of suffering after physical death in consequence of earthly actions): nobody knows with certainty what God will decide about any individual when an HB ‘gets to the other side’.

So in this human-nature discussion, we are operating on a level far below and also beyond mere appearances and this or that historical instance.

The ‘bogey-man’ is a popularization of a far more vital reality: HBs don’t come into this life with a full and complete awareness of their genuine nature (nor can they easily sustain that vital and urgent awareness throughout life). Thus they need to be educated, the same way that prospective pilots don’t come with a complete flight-school education about aerodynamics and so they have to be schooled. I’ve always felt that Catholic moral education should get far more serious far earlier, but over the centuries and when you’re dealing with large numbers of folks, especially young ones, the ‘scare’ tactic can seem a necessary short-cut. But I will also say that every HB should be scared: ignorance of those ‘laws of aerodynamics’ can only cause serious problems for HBs as individuals and as societies and cultures.

Lastly, I certainly don’t agree that in all of this effort the Church has failed “9 times out of 10”. Nor – as has elsewhere been suggested in contemporary culture – that because of the Abuse Crisis (such as it was) the Church has lost its moral standing and has nothing of value to say to humanity. Nor have I seen – after umpty decades – that the contemporary ‘no limits’ approach has made life and society and culture any better … just the opposite, I would say.

You believe the Church has value. It's the corporation that is the issue not the faith. Your hierarchy could have saved, still could save itself from further embarressment by simply doing the right thing. Pope Ratzinger instead blesses the Ugandan head of parliment for it's anti gay stances. He declares us of living in a different reality and says gay marriage is the major issue of our time. Did he miss the planet; warfare and hunger?

Your corporation is completely out of touch with reality. If the ill educated American public can figure out gays and blacks and women and Jews and foriegnors arn't the problem in the world. Why can't the Church get it? Too old; too rich ? Too pampered?

When is recognizing peoples' rights going against the laws of nature? It's your hierarchs who think they can control the human spirit. Isn't that going against the laws of nature? Life's a banquet yet most poor people are starving to death. Because they, thanks to religion , in my opinion, set up Gestapo units in their own heads. Using other peoples' definitions to create themselves.

First, JR is already on record on this site for declaring himself an atheist, so it is incoherent to claim that the problem with the Church is “not the faith” but rather only “the corporation”. I get the idea that he has no real thought-out position but rather simply takes a look at whatever is put up and comes up with the most handy and convenient pile to throw at the screen that time around. And the next time around … same old same old.

Second, as with all human institutions in this dimension of existence or on this Plane of Existence, you can’t actually separate the Ideal and the Actual. Realizing that most of their fellow French citizens were either corroborating with the Germans or passively let the whole Occupation wash over them like flounder on the sea-bottom, the French Resistance members bucked up their spirits by telling each other that they were fighting for ‘la France eternelle’, the eternal or ideal France and not the one that was all around them in their historical moment and era. You can’t actually pull off Shylock’s Gambit and imagine that you can separate the blood and other substances from any given pound of human flesh. Ditto these days with the US government.

Third, the embarrassment of the Church in the Abuse Crisis is not only the result of an initially wrong-footed response to such actual and genuine revelations as there were (including in that wrong-footed response the throwing of inconveniently-accused priests under the bus). It is also the result of a well-calibrated campaign mounted against the Church by various special interests, using such organizations as SNAP and Bishop-Accountability as front organizations (see my comments on this article having to do with Propaganda techniques and the links therewith included). For that matter, I would also note that there has been no such well-calibrated media campaign mounted by the Church as has been mounted by the forces generating a great deal of the embarrassing publicity.

I am not familiar with the specific comments of the Pope about gay-marriage. However, if you grant the fact that the Catholic vision is a comprehensive and integrally-woven systemic explanation of what constitutes the genuine in human cultures, then there is certainly a logical connection to such fundamental building blocks as the constitution of the Family and the role of sex. (Speaking personally, my own thought is that the Church has limited itself by relying only on one of the Creation narratives in the Book of Genesis, the one that indicates that man and woman should multiply. There is a second narrative in the Book that refers to God saying “it is not good that man should be alone” and thus God created Eve as a companion to Adam … this second narrative gives a bit more room scripturally to consider a second purpose to marriage besides the begetting of children by a man and a woman through the act of sexual congress. But there are still complications that arise if you go this route and I am not setting myself up as having The Solution to the issue.)

The Pope in his New Year’s Message also has some serious things to say about “financial capitalism”, so I don’t think he’s that out of touch with world-affairs. Also, the African Catholic laity and clergy – as well as Africans generally – seem rather more conservative in their approach to marriage than contemporary American liberals and secularists, and so I don’t think he’s out of touch in that regard either.

Hence, I can’t see any grounds for claiming that the Church is “completely out of touch with reality”. Not hardly.

Additionally, “the ill-educated” American public seems to have some reservations about some of these matters too; if that weren’t the case, various current sociological and cultural initiatives would not have the trouble they are having getting established and generally accepted.

I certainly never said that “recognizing people’s rights” is contrary to human nature. The Question – though – is just what one is asserting to be a “right”. And in that regard, in addition to what I have said in prior comments here, there is a very significant and substantial bit of disagreement on just what are and are not “rights” in this country. That should be as clear as a bell to anybody who follows the news, if nothing else.

Fourth, the Church is not trying to “control the human spirit” any more than the flight-school is trying to “control” (or – to use the term I used in my metaphor – trying to “oppress”) the human spirit. Trying to explain to pilots why reversing the engines in flight and trying to fly backwards is not at all a good idea is not characterizable as trying to “oppress” the pilots’ spirit. Except in a Cartoon world.

And once again, you can’t separate ‘spirit’ from ‘reality’: if the pilots’ “spirit” urges them to (try to) fly the aircraft in reverse, then clearly that “spirit” is in need of some education.

Moving on to the cliché about life being a banquet: people, especially hungry people, can eat themselves to death at a banquet if they haven’t mastered their “spirit” to the extent that they can wisely monitor their intake of food. Unless perhaps they adopt the ancient Roman practice of eating to gross excess and then simply making themselves throw up and then heading back to the table and the bar. Which, actually, might not be a bad description of how many Americans seem to think of life these days.

Which brings us back again to the matter of how to define “nature”: is it simply the sum total of our basic urges and impulses – whatever they may be – or is it rather the mastering and shaping of our human energies, vitalities, emotions, urges and impulses in the service of the genuine human-nature by which all HBs are Shaped? If this Question isn’t answered then subsequent discussion and thought are going to be built over a void where there should be a solid foundation.

If a pilot has ‘internalized’ the awareness that the aircraft cannot be flown in reverse and thus rejects any spontaneous impulse to throw the engines into reverse in-flight, can we seriously say that that pilot has “set up a Gestapo unit” in his/her head?

Jung – among other Moderns – sought to achieve a human transcendental capacity without actually having to get involved in any transcendental reality or any Beyond (thus any God). He wanted – as Comte with his “religion of humanity” wanted – to get rid of God but still have all the useful and consoling bennies of religion. He wanted to fly without leaving the ground. It hasn’t worked, it doesn’t work, it isn’t working, and it can’t ever work. In my opinion.

In regard to this matter of “the human spirit”, it might also help to clarify matters by recalling Plato’s tripartite division of the soul’s powers into the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive.

The rational is the ability to think and reason; the spirited is the power of vitality that the human being can invest in the life-project; the appetitive is the collection of urges and desires for food and drink, possessions, and sex.

When Modern and Contemporary thought insists on simply ‘liberating’ that ‘human spirit’ from the ‘oppression’ of limits, to which of the soul’s aspects does it refer? Or does it mean to include all of them? Or has that thought not really given much thought to this Question at all?

In the West today, the Church is one of the last great institutions that continues to make the point that ‘limits’ are not only not-automatically-a-bad-thing, but even that limits are vitally necessary in order to a) prevent a profoundly deranging excess but also to b) channel human vitalities and energies and capabilities toward a genuine achievement and fulfillment of the true nature of human beings.

Which, I am firmly convinced, is a major reason why so many special-interests, greatly committed to Contemporary thought, find the Church both an obstacle and a threat and even a rival to their objectives and agendas.

It may seem strange – especially in light of the general run of internet commentary as it exists these days – to raise such philosophical issues, but if we don’t realize what’s going on and what’s at stake at this level of reality, then we won’t have a sufficient grasp of the dynamics involved, and the dynamics that, like subsurface springs of water, feed long and deep efforts to weaken the Church’s stature in society and culture.

So, instead of focusing on the latest media scandal which is the subject of this article, we're sparring with another antiCatholic atheist SNAP "plant" intent on refocusing the conversation and keeping us on the defense.

Oh yea, I have so little knowledge. I can certainly tell the difference between s*&t and shinola. Your" news" is clerical, religious. My news is a tad more human and kindness centered. I always thought Jesus was more about kindness than "christian soldier". But any diety offering eternal fire, speaks for it self..

You think your Pope blessing the possibility of a death penalty for being gay Ugandan Parliament is a reflection of Jesus? Blessing murder?

Again you can believe in the Tooth Fairy if you need to. But no, you can not have that tooth fairy that u believe in, tell you that killing me is good. That's where your "faith' ends at my body.

Again these ad hominem attacks. pretending I throw dung at your beliefs when simply: I just don't believe what you do. is stupid.

There is a corporate Church making corporate decisions that is very separate from your Faith. It appears you still don't get that SNAP is the jaundiced eyed corporate action of your corporate Church. Possibly the Church in the mid west, who created and maintains SNAP, knows that sexuall abuse of minors is so endemic to the corporate Church; that dealling with it justly would destroy their old boys network and that they would come crashing down. They would come down not the Faith. And so they behave unjustly. As do you. Your choice. A sad choice but definately your own.

Your hierarchy has bought it's own P.R. It bought it from some firm. A firm that said if u create a SNAP, your silence in respose to SNAP's "blasts" will make you (The corporate Church) appear to be the victim. Not the real victims but the abuser will appear to be the innocent. Charming! So Christ like.

P.S. You know how Bishop Accountability is funded. A little old man appears every year and hands them money. From where , knowbody knows. I know.

Would you , if you were so anti Catholic, choose a name that infers Bishops hold themselves "accountable' when in fact they have done next to nothing but minimilized their responsability? I wouldn't and neither would most victims.

It NEVER fails- when you permit the oh-so tiresome throng of dung-throwers to "spend" their load, they always reveal their true agenda-which is to simply bring down the Catholic Church and her adherents, including those in the pews that "they" pretend to support, by any means. It isn't about abusive priests or Hitler's Pope, or the Crusades, indulgences or the Inquisition. It is always just about believing, period.

And, this is how we know we're on the right track. I just caution the truly gifted and talented (read HONEST and TRUSTWORTY here) contributors to this site to not let the "dung noise" distract you from focusing on the real assailants, who are the Media.

While sparring with the dishonest media's loyal little minions may serve to maintain some toning, it is time to chase away their annoying pests and prepare to take on Goliath, in the form of the media's favorite stratgey of personal attacks. There needs to be a counter-press that investigates the "journalists" personal lives, including their families, medical records, school records, relationships, etc. to root out the evil at it's very core.

Delph if you've had a previous life; I'm sure you led a crusade. And we all know how well they went. I might call you Crusader Rabbit. So much anger. I'm sorry you feel so betrayed. I really am. And there's nothing I can say to make you feel better. That's an inside job.

Of course a crusade is exactly what is needed, which is why the oppositions gut response would be to illegitimize it by criticizing, defaming, attacking and belittling the notion. There was more than one copy of that Rules for Radicals rag the left (and similarly disposed atheists) worship as their bible floating around - we know how its also played by the rabid antiCatholic crowd.

And, as a recent example, do note another lefty rags response to such effective Crusader tactics when their own fire was turned upon them – see Journal News, that trash Gannet rag that published the names and addresses of registered gun owners in NY. Don't you know the rag journalists actually hired armed guards and pulled in their sidewalks and rolled down the blinds when they were each individually similarly exposed? Not a peep out of the rag since, and they'll likely go belly up soon enough. The good guys are finally figuring out how to fight back, and win.

And, the Holy Crusades being perceived as failures are debatable. Since Europe is a majority Christian continent, I'd say that the radicalized Muslims, that cite the Crusades to this day as one of their myriad of reasons to invoke global jihad, would claim that they were, after all, rather successful in some respects. When even ever-confused France punches back (as rare an event as any) in Mali, the first response salvo out of the terrorists is to invoke the Crusades. I guess the Christian campaign had more of an effect on the enemy's psyche than the lying lefties would have us believe?

Re: anger, betrayal and inside jobs: MeThinks thou dost PROJECT, too much, dear fellow. In case you forgot (and actually can't recall your thousands of posts on the topic), you claim the victimhood and conspiracies (right all the way up past the Vatican to heaven!), not I.

I am simply another happy [Catholic] warrior, and not the kind that turns the other cheek. In other words, the oppositions worst nightmare.

Jim, God bless you, but I never read your posts any more. There's just no point. I have a question for Dave. Do you have one person who posts here under several different pseudonyms? Or do you not allow several names to post under the same IP address.

There is no "un Holy war" against your Church. Your corporate Church hierarchy have never been called to account for their actions before ( and they are but rarely being called to account for their actions now). They're used to walking through the rain drops and coming out dry. The fact that victims and the press mention the hierarchys failings is a war to you?.

And you obviously know zip about our manipulation and control and invasions of Islamic nations throughout our history with them. If you leave Islamic people alone they won't bother you. In the last 3 years I've visted both Egypt and Turkey and was treated with respect and kindness because I treated them with respect and kindness.

Why do I get the impression from you that your Catholic education consisted of Saturday catechism classes? For some reason converts and Catechism class Catholics seem to be the most (to quote you) "Rabid". I had 12 years of catholic schooling; 8 years of which I'm extremely grateful for. Not the religious indoctrination but the education that connected me to 2000 years of western history. Allbeit like the Media Report highly edited.

The Crusades were launched for the purpose of re-capturing the Holy Land. The next logical and natural question might be to wonder from whom it was necessary to re-capture the Holy Land, i.e. the persons who had invaded and captured the place to begin with. Ditto the famous Spanish Re-conquista. Ditto the famous battles fought at Tours and Toulouse in the early 700s AD (turning back invasions launched by the Cordoban emirate from Islamic-occupied Spain). Ditto – and less than a century before the American Revolution and only 9 years before the Salem Witch Trials – the battle fought at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

Also, there seems to be a confusion as to the party or parties referred to in the phrase “throughout our history with them”. Does this refer to the Church or to various Western governments or coalitions of business-interests (i.e. the early-20th century interest in Mesopotamia’s oil on the part of various Western governments and corporate interests, still on-going today)? Or the interests of various world-powers in the centuries during which the Ottoman Empire was declining and losing its grasp on its conquered territories, peoples, and lands?

And while it is might be possible – even in these regulated times – to send a reasonably docile wildebeest on a trip to foreign lands, yet upon return of what value would that traveler be as a source of any sort of worthwhile and accurately communicated knowledge gleaned from its peregrinations?

Thus my thoughts prompted by the phrase “obviously you know zip about” … how very very true.

Didn't take much effort to hit that ever-exposed nerve and simultaneously reveal the real agenda (what an incredible mess of contradictions) - it was almost too easy. When the lies, attacks, pleading victimization fails to convert the believers, it is always the last resort of the dastardly and desperate to threaten.

And, now that the mask is off, the real truthseekers on this site can cease responding to or attempting to reach the truly (sadly) lost with their honesty, for the lost are content to be hopeless and hapless – and, in this condition they thrive, it is their life blood.

I've obviously dialed the right number and it scares the hell (their address, perhaps?) out of them. The threats are a joke – go and get a lawyer- get a few, I hear SNAP has a number of dry drunks looking for some busywork during their recent downtime (which will be much longer than even they imagined). The tide is turning.

While I keep the clowns busy, I do hope to continue to see resident TMRs posters continue their good work to uncover and analyze the true scandal that is SNAP and their media cohorts increasingly irrelevent attacks on the greatest institution and religion the world has known.

Delphin, I think you are right. Dave, Thanks. I was just wondering. There are a handful of truly nasty people who comment here and I was wondering if they were the same person. They pretend they are justified in attacking Catholics, but they are simply vicious anonymous commenters who like to satisfy themselves by verbally kicking believers in the crotch.

I forget that Catholicism lives off victimization in every form. From the catacombs to the gates of Vienna from the innocent hierarchy to the Media Report. the church must be the victim because it so obvously never ever does anything wrong.

How convient for Pub ( per usual) to leave out the good behavior of Islam.:Mathmatics; Medicine even the foundation for the Renaisance.(By preserving the books of Greece and Rome through the Church's dark ages.) Is it inconvient to fit in with the U.S. concept: "What is our oil doing under their land"? That's what our, the U.S.; British Jihad against Islam comes down to." We" want what they own. The Catholics must continuiously have an enemy so that it's own un Christ like behavior(, examples to numerous to mention) won't be noticed cause the boogey man (Pick one) is at the gates.

The same can be said for the "evil, Satan inspired" victims of child rape and the Church. It's a devil who doesn't exist (Since u believe in him u prove he does) attacking these "Holy men". Who haven't even paid or been criminally held accountable for their actions. "Irrelevent attacks"? Extraordinary!

If you Delphinium, have "dialed" a right number, it was probably as in the Hitchcock film, M for Murder. That's what you offer instead of Christ's teaching, Child rape and Murder? U definately are more in line with Demons than Angels. Please pick better imaginary friends Delphinium. Slander is slander dear. And I'm very serious.

Now, Julie, Interesting approch with a single person possibly posting as many. I assume u wished to find out if I was Rich or Kay Ebeling or if one of them was me. Well Dave told you the truth. That's 3 victims telling u SNAP's the Church but u refuse to believe any victim about anything; it appears. Sad! Don't read what I post Julie you so obviously need the Church more than u need truth.

Is it possible to back away from the looney brink and speak to each other like adults trying to solve a real problem here? Or are you cloaked in your imagined victimhood like some delusional Red Riding Hood continiously mistaking the paperboy for a wolf?

So, as we call all see, it isn't really about those "wascally abusive pwiests or their equally wascally heirwarchy"; it really is about faithful Catholics, in the pews, out of the pews, here, there and everywhere…..and always has been.

This particular TMR "contributer" is just another antiCatholic bigot. They are a dime a dozen, and this one, in particular, is especially chintzy. He has wasted our most esteemed contributors valuable resources for too long. His hatred is toxic….to himself much more than to us. But, he can be a uselful tool (even more so than in the strictest slang sense) to the cause, so long as he isn't permitted to continue to highjack and refocus the fruitful and honest discussions. Rather than ban him from TMR, as have numerous other sites, it might be beneficial to the cause to permit him his cathartic (albeit evil) outlet here as even Satan himself slips up and reveals something useful, occasionally.

"Wasting resources"? If any one's resorces are being wasted it isn't Dave's by me. It's the Church's resources that the hierarchy has laid waste to: their own faithful who are leaving by the flock load.

What "fruitful and honest discussion? Lock step nonsense? Paranoia passed off as intelligence? Blood thirst passed off as defense of an un challenged faith?

Set your discourse as you will; but don't blame me if you really have nothing intelligent to say.

I often wonder if perpetrators post here. Why should we assume they don't? I think consistantly posing " a lack of proof" political defense of the cover up and abuse scandal is a great way to muddy waters. Especially in it's broad generalizations. re: accusations are unbelievable because there's no "proof". A great cover story if you 're afraid one day your story might come to light.( I don't defend the argument I've just made as truth; but since we appear to be inside the borders of broad generalization land I thought I'd make a broad generalization to fit in.)

And if I was an "antiCatholic bigot" and we are "a dime a dozen" according to you; How do you think so many of us "bigots" were created inside your Perfect Corporation?

Your projections are twisting you, Delphinium. What cause are you fighting for ? Which windmill are you tilting at, Delphinium of La Mancha? There's no one hurting your Church but you and the hierarchs you follow.

People aren't tools for you to "use".

And since the only person who continually evokes Satan in their posts is you. I have to ask you why you do that? The Church has never made a "pronouncement" re the devil's existence. Why must you keep seeing "him" everywhere someone disagrees with you?

You and Pub consistantly tangentualize the attempts at reconcilliation available to us here.

Why is that? Who benefits? The victims? The faithful? The Church? or is it (as always) just the bosses?

I have no idea what sense is to be made of the mutton-lamb bit – what’s new?

What “analysis” was offered? More to the point: what “analysis” was necessary? The point to be made was the simple historical fact that Islam – arising as a tribal religion out of the Arabian desert – expanded militarily and violently to take over a substantial bit of the planet, including the Iberian peninsula and (almost) France, and sustained that impetus one way or the other for a millennium and more.

There is nothing “so-called” about its capture of the Holy Land (although it is a touchingly pathetic mimicry of competent analysis to try to use the term in the way it is used here); it is a historical fact, supported by the geographical fact that Jerusalem and the Eastern Med and the territories of the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans and Central Asia and India are not in the Arabian desert, nor is any part of Europe.

The Mamluks enslaved Christians – those whom it did not kill – (and that practice lasted up until the era of the Barbary Pirates, to whom the young United States paid tribute and then against whom it mounted naval expeditions); and do we exclude the Turkish involvement in the deaths of so many of the (Orthodox) Armenians in World War 1? In 850 AD, Al-Mutawakkil (one of the Abbasid Caliphs) required by decree that Christians and Jews wear “honey-colored” (we would perhaps today say ‘yellow’) circular patches on the exterior of their garments, one on the front and one on the back, the diameter to be no smaller than the width of “four-fingers” … and perhaps the readership will recognize something unpleasantly familiar in that historical fact.

My point being that there is significant difficulty with the Cartoon image that a) Muslim governance of infidels was essentially peaceable and benevolent and that b) in that regard Muslim governance was in essence the shining opposite of Christian praxis.

The Church had to deal with the violent tendencies and heroic warrior cultures of the Northern barbarian tribes that had entered the late Roman Empire and then the tribes it sought to convert as its missionary efforts expanded in northern Europe; the Muslim religion had to deal with its own roots in the sharp and violent characteristics of the desert tribalism whence it sprang. To which, as time went on, political and imperial dynamics were mixed.

Cartoon-mentalities operate in their selective and simplistic ways on a) facts, b) dynamics, and c) conclusions. But we are saved by the fact that even though such mentalities may occasionally seek to mask themselves by mimicking more competent analytic and even mental process, they can rarely do more than pull off a momentary and fragmented mimicry, which usually serves only to highlight the essential fraudulence of their effort and the essential insufficiency of their entire approach.

I have to get this off my chest. I complain about SNAP. I complain about the hierarchy that created SNAP and who also passed around perpetrators who happened to be clerics. If your children or grandchildren or you weren't touched, be grateful. I am grateful for you. But if you were a victim or parents of one and your Bishop had passed that man to you, enabling, through the hierarchs backing, the harm done to you or yours; how would you feel? Which "side" would you be on?

Now let me deconstruct Pub's latest. According to Pub, I : mimic; and mask I'm insufficient I'm fraudulent. I have a cartoon mentality. I'm selective and simplistic. Whew!

And then he ignores his own topic the Holy Land and sails down the North African coast all the way to Spain and France. Thanks for the blood stained vacation but so? Spain was invaded by about 5000 "Moors" and they reigned in peace for hundreds of years. Cordova had street lighting while London was still a city of mud huts. I can also safely say Christianity was 1000 times more bloody towards it's enemies that Islam's ever been.

That being said. How does any of this solve the problem at hand? Are you about victimization (obviously "yours" not ours) or solutions? Can there be solutions if you, both individually and collectively, hold no power in or over your own "Princes"? You are the dogs in this fight not the trainers.

If you believe I'm wrong about Islamic bloodshed vs. Christian bloodshed. I can only use the concurrent example of Hundreds of thoudsands Islamic dead in Iraq , Afganistan etc. to avenge the 3000 deaths on 9/11. Where's jesus in those actions?

"Where was Jesus in those actions?": I guess the "I don't attack your faith" pitch so oft repeated here by himself is shorter-lived this time 'round. So, the problem this time isn't the Church, their priests, the heirarchy or their cleaning women; it is Jesus, Lord God Almighty Himself. But, remember, "I have no problem with your faith".

And, after all, we all know that 911 was an inside Catholic job – this is the new "Truther".

What is most sad about this latest mental collapse is that the media suffer from the very same malady.

And old horse-training (gentling, formerly known as "breaking") trick is to plant yourself in one spot during the predictable behavioral outbursts, keeping your eyes locked on him while he bucks and runs around you (you should be digging yourself into the ground as you spin within your circle, always facing the horse) and let him run himself stupid. Upon the inevitable exhaustion, he ALWAYS eventually stops, walks into you, head lowered, ears pricked and eyes focused. This means " I know I was being a jerk, I just needed to get it out of my system. Now, I'm ready to obey."

These critics and assaulters of our Church are not geniuses (far from it) and they certainly are not outsmarting anybody. They [currently] have the momentum on their sides so will run themselves stupid until the new reality hits them (reality being the turning of the tide against them that is underway).

So, we shall remain planted on our mound circling as we face the challenge, forever refreshed and vindicated, as the ill-behaved eventually exhaust themselves, and finally return to the fold.

JR sees himself as a force for “reconciliation”. I cannot see where in the extant record of all his comments on this site that self-description can be demonstrated as anything less than a delusion. But he is welcome to quote himself (giving article reference and date-time stamp of the comment, please) if the face he sees in his mirror assures him that he is indeed a reconciler.

For any of those new to this site, JR repeats his ‘theory’ that – waitttt forrrr ittttt! – the Church invented SNAP in order, as he once put it on this site, to “control” the abuse crisis.

He then appears to have forgotten his own initial point, thus leading himself to think that for no discernible purpose I went on a blood-stained tour of much of the planet. But of course the initial point, made by him, was that Islam was so much more tolerant and peaceable than Christianity – and all I did was limn the track of Islamic military conquest as it exists in the historical record.

I would need some validation for the assertion that “JR can safely say” (another neat stylistic mimicry though … has he been watching Sherlock Holmes movies or Masterpiece Theater? … practicing in front of the mirror, even?) that “Christianity was a 1000 times more bloody towards its enemies than Islam’s ever been” – it will take more than telegrams from the tinfoil hat to establish the validity of that assertion.

Certainly, the Muslims wound up in (Christian-Visigothic) Spain through military invasion and conquest and in fact it appears that they got pretty much everywhere they did by military action. JR’s further assertion that once they got there everybody got along swimmingly is going to need some validation. Certainly, the Muslims couldn’t even pacify their own forces, facing rebellions by various ethnic subgroups in those forces.

JR is already on record on this site as claiming that the Church cannot offer any solutions to ‘victims’ – so once again his plaint here is demonstrably incoherent and can only be rhetorical (I use the word here in its worst possible sense).

The acts perpetrated by the US government in response to 9/11 are the acts of a government, not of Christianity and certainly not of the Church – so what is the relevance?

Unless – perhaps … if I try to imagine I have a tinfoil hat on myself … that … the Church instigated the US government’s military response to 9/11 in order to distract everybody from the abuse matters. And perhaps even that … the Church was behind 9/11 because it knew the abuse crisis was going to go into hyperdrive a few months later in January 02. And this can be proven by ……… the fact that Christianity has always been 1000 times more bloody towards its enemies than Islam was …. And that’s why there must be 300,000 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan … (and maybe 9 unreported dead for every one proven dead).

Well, the preceding paragraph was my brief stab at trying to work with tinfoil. Absent medication, it has given me a headache so I think I’ll stop now.

Anyhoo, I can understand the impatience and frustration expressed by some readers in comments. I can only express my own reasons for continuing to address points raised by comments that so often appear to be better ignored. I do it because a) I believe that some comments on this site – whatever their inherent value or lack of it – accurately reveal the mindset of a rather large number of persons out there in the webverse; thus to address points raised on this site actually may work to address ideas held by others of similar mental disposition who don’t comment here but read the comments here. Also because if there is not some sort of clear refutation or correction, those types may well figure that their approach has ‘won’. Don’t forget – to some real extent we are dealing with a high-school cafeteria mentality in these matters.

And b) because I believe that it is good for generally-interested readers to see just what sort of mentality drives so much of the Oz-like phenomenon that internet-victim-organizations have become, especially in this abuse-mater. As I have said before, imagine rooms-full of these people – actually or virtually – being assured by specially-interested ‘official thinkers’ (certain disgruntled and selectively-focused clergy and ex-clergy, tort-attorneys trolling for business, and an associate pandemonium of other well-placed axe-grinders and manipulators) that they are all right and very clever and are in total and secure possession of all the truth that needs to be known … and you can imagine what sort of a perfect-storm of dysfunctional ‘knowledge’ is whipped up. The deluded but self-sure myrmidons of belief-bots are then sent forth – actually and virtually – much like that assorted bunch of hell-raisers in Mel Brooks’s superb scene in “Blazing Saddles” where the evil state attorney-general (Hedley Lamarr) deputizes them and sends them out to wreck the village of Rock Ridge. Except perhaps for JR, who needs no “steenking badges” to carry on.

And on that note, I think I’m going to have a cuppa and watch that very DVD.

You really must be in yer cups as my old Irish grandmother would say. Are you just a blowhard or does alchol and or poor eyesight interfear with reading what I wrote.? Explain please. At what place did I veer from Jesus' teachings???? The Crusaders veered other people, 30,000 Rhine Jews, right out of life itself. I can not believe the readers here missed Jesus and his Dad saying: Thou shalt not kill. Unless you want to?

You've made me the focus here?. Why? Why the big need to grind me into the ground; not my beliefs but me. I ,as a human being, am the problem?

I'm such a problem that you want to train me like a horse? Oh Baby!

To criticize is majorly different from an assault. If you can't tell the difference your paranoia has taken you over. But I smell professionalism here. Am I that truthful ?you need my silence to what, feel better? Or is it something else?

What you have no answer for my arguements but personal attacks and Germanic war language; and equestrian behaviorism?????Amazing !

I must tell you : I couldn't buy a better enemy than you. Your lack of kindness and logic speaks , sadly, for itself.

Why attack reconcilliation? No one from your "side' wants peace?

You Delphinium are mistaken you aren't planted on your mound. You're deep in it. A mound of your own making.